Polymers
Overview
Global polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) supply and demand dynamics are in transition. Supply is increasing much faster than demand and international trade is shifting due to political and economic events. About 40% of the US polyethylene production is exported, mainly to Asian markets, whereas only about 10% of the polypropylene production is exported, mainly to LATAM markets.
Ethylene prices in Asia and Europe are tied to naphtha whereas ethylene prices in the US are impacted by natural gas and ethane supply. Asia is also self-sufficient on PP whereas they must import 25% of their PE demand.
The impacts of other ethylene and propylene derivatives such as PVC or propylene oxide also require assessment.
Our polymer experts will help you determine what trends to track and how to stay competitive in today’s ever-changing global markets.
Latest polymers news
Browse the latest market moving news on the global polymers industry.
Q&A: Neste on circular feedstocks, mass balance
Q&A: Neste on circular feedstocks, mass balance
London, 2 April (Argus) — Finnish refiner Neste recently commissioned a 150,000t/yr upgrading facility for liquefied plastic waste, including plastic-derived pyrolysis oil, in Porvoo, Finland, to supply recycled plastic-based feedstocks to the petrochemicals market. Neste's director of polymers and chemicals Maiju Helin spoke to Argus about expectations for the market, their views on EU mass balance rules, and hopes for bio-based content targets for plastic packaging. What are your current experiences and future expectations for the demand for plastic pyrolysis oil and circular feedstocks in Europe? The market is gradually on a growth trajectory, but developing slower than we expected. We see there will be demand when the regulation kicks in, but now we are between the adoption of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and recycled content targets coming into force so it's really not affecting the market as heavily as we would have wanted to see. Other aspects such as high energy costs, the competitive pressure towards the European petrochemical industry coming from outside of Europe, delays that we see in chemical recycling plans and geopolitical uncertainties have slowed the development of the market. Nevertheless, we now have the world's largest upgrading capacity and are ready to grow with the market and ramp up as supply/demand develops. The upgrader has an input capacity of 150,000 t/yr, significantly more pyrolysis oil capacity than is available in the European market — how quickly do you anticipate being able to fill this? I can't comment on our current state of operation. But you are absolutely right that today we will not be able to run this unit at full capacity. We hope to as soon as possible, but we need to see how quickly the market develops and how the supply pool develops. And then, we are there to do this together with our suppliers and customers at scale. What is Neste's position on the mass balance accounting rules being adopted in the EU for allocating recycled content from chemical recycling in the Single-Use Plastic Directive (SUPD), and ahead of discussions about the rules to be adopted for the PPWR? Our new facility processes liquefied waste plastic, and then the upgraded pyrolysis oil is co-processed with intermediates coming from crude oil refining [in the Porvoo refinery]. The rules that were laid down for the SUPD make it rather difficult for the refineries to create value from their contribution towards the recycled content targets. We want to ensure that the refineries will enable the scale-up of chemical recycling within Europe. Refineries have a role to play for several reasons. It is about a lower investment overall, because refineries have existing infrastructure that can be used at a lower cost than greenfield. We know from the Draghi report [a 2024 report by Italy's Mario Draghi on Europe's competitiveness and the EU's future] that Europe doesn't have that much investment money on the table. The Porvoo refinery is able to remove impurities and optimise chemical compositions. This allows liquefiers to use more difficult-to-recycle waste streams and eases the raw material competition with mechanical recycling. We hope Europe readjusts the mass balance recycled content calculation rules for the PPWR, so that we can really unleash the potential of this upgrading unit that we have finalised. What could those amendments look like? One idea is to add detail about specific refinery processes, to allow more recycled "credits" to be assigned to petrochemical feedstock if only certain units of the refinery are used to co-process pyrolysis oil, rather than requiring credits to be allocated proportionally across all the refinery output… We are analysing how we could do a credible, credit-based mass balance within the refinery and make it technically and economically feasible at the same time. What you mentioned is potentially one of the ways this could work. But without knowing the exact details, it is difficult to say if it would work for us. We are supporting the fuel use exempt model. We are not advocating for free attribution. But we just need to find ways, for the calculation rules to address the specifics of refineries in a way that they can be eligible within the framework. Neste also owns the European technology licensing rights for pyrolysis company Alterra Energy. How do you perceive the current investment environment for new chemical recycling installations in Europe? We continue to see interest in investing in liquefaction in Europe and we work together with our partners Technip Energies and Alterra to commercialise Alterra's technology. Some investments are being idled or delayed. I guess because players want to wait for clear EU-wide rules on mass balance and end-of-waste criteria. Pyrolysis is one of the most promising technologies to handle the multi-layer packaging waste, mixed plastic waste and other difficult-to-recycle plastic waste streams. Legislative uncertainty is not the only hurdle, but probably the biggest one... also the geopolitical situation and costs in general have an impact. Would Neste invest itself in pyrolysis capacity in Europe? Our role today is in the upgrading part of the value chain. The aim of the licensing is to create supply and accelerate the scaling up of chemical recycling. If the mass balance rules remain unfavourable towards an upgrading process such as the one you have, involving co-processing in a refinery, for PPWR, are there other uses for this upgrader? And what is the future for the asset? Our priority is on upgrading liquefied waste plastic even if we have recognised the restricted raw material availability at the moment. The investment was made solely for liquefied waste plastic and we created a segregated liquefied waste plastic input for the upgrading facility. All in all, it's too early to talk about something like that, because we primarily want to see the liquefied waste plastic succeeding in the polymers and chemicals market. We are not looking at the fuel pool as an alternative market for liquefied waste plastic-based products. Neste is also a major biofuels producer. Would you support bio-based polymers being allowed to count towards existing recycled content targets in PPWR, or would you prefer them to have separate targets? We're in favour of including bio-based plastics within PPWR, and how we would want to see it happen is with separate targets for bio-based material and recycled material. We are a firm believer in the need to move away from the use of fossil raw materials and need to enable all possible raw materials and technologies to be eligible and to thrive. Recycled and renewable raw materials for the petrochemical industry work well together and can make the greatest impact in moving away from the use of fossil. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Vinmar in 15-year offtake deal for Citroniq PP
Vinmar in 15-year offtake deal for Citroniq PP
Houston, 19 March (Argus) — Global polymer trader Vinmar has agreed to buy corn-based polypropylene (PP) from Citroniq's planned Nebraska plant under a binding 15-year offtake agreement. The deal represents half of Citroniq's 600,000 t/yr PP capacity at the plant, which is expected to begin production in 2029, the Houston, Texas-based companies said last week. The project will use a corn-to-ethanol-to-propylene-to-polypropylene process. Growing corn removes carbon from the air, and Citroniq's process sequesters that carbon in PP pellets, making the polymer "carbon negative", according to the company. Vinmar's Premier Product Marketing unit has agreed to distribute the Citroniq resin, to be sold as OrganiqPP, through its global petrochemical logistics network. The long-term commitment reflects rising demand for low-carbon, drop-in polymers that are compatible with existing processing equipment, Citroniq said. The company expects adoption across packaging, consumer goods, automotive and industrial markets. By Dona Davis Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
NWE vPET outstrips rPET for first time in 2 years
NWE vPET outstrips rPET for first time in 2 years
London, 10 March (Argus) — Virgin PET (vPET) spot prices rose to a premium over rPET flake in northwest Europe on 6 March, for the first time in nearly two years, which is likely to drive demand for recycled material into cost-saving applications. The European vPET spot price rose by €125/t to €1,000-1,100/t on 6 March, tracking higher costs for feedstock paraxylene (PX) in Europe and Asia resulting from the disruption of exports through the strait of Hormuz. The strait is used for exports by large manufacturers in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman. Rising global container freight rates — also a result of the war in the Middle East — have risen to cost of PET imports to Europe from Asia, supporting European spot prices. The increase pushed the price €80/t above the spot price for rPET flake, which held steady last week at €950-990/t. This is the first time since March 2024 that rPET flake has been cheaper than vPET, and it was €280/t more expensive on average in 2025. When rPET flake is more expensive than vPET, demand into applications such as sheet and fibre — so-called "cost saving" applications, where there is no mandate on manufacturers to use recycled content — typically suffers. RPET food-grade pellets remain more expensive than vPET, but the differential fell to €340/t last week from over €460/t the previous week. Demand food-grade pellets — which are made from rPET flake — is driven by EU legislation mandating 25pc recycled content in beverage bottles, making the price comparison with vPET less important. Higher virgin polymer prices are expected by recyclers to benefit rPE and rPP demand in the near term, if sustained. The Middle East is a major exporter of virgin polyolefins, mainly through the strait of Hormuz, so its virtual closure also lifted global PE and PP spot prices significantly last week. Northwest European prices rose by €175-250/t, depending on grade, while prices for rPE and rPP were largely stable. As a result, the discount for low-end rHDPE, rPP and rLDPE/LLDPE grades — which are typically used in cost-saving applications such as pipes, plant pots, crates and construction/agricultural films — has widened significantly. For rHDPE pipe, the differential is now at its widest since Argus launched its recyclate assessment in October 2022, while for rPP and rLDPE dark/black grades, it is at its widest in nearly a year. In the particular case of rPP High MFI Plant Pot Grade material, the discount to virgin PP has been re-established at over €200/t. This is seen as a threshold for converters to offset reduced production efficiency caused by using recycled material. This was probably a factor in demand picking up last week, after a slow start to the peak season for flower pot production in January-February. By Will Collins and Chloe Kinner Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
rPET closures worsen circularity challenge: NAPCOR
rPET closures worsen circularity challenge: NAPCOR
London, 6 March (Argus) — Argus spoke to Laura Stewart, executive director of the National Association of PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), at the Plastics Recycling Conference in San Diego on 24 February, about the threat that recent recycling closures pose to US PET circularity and what can be done to help. How are recent recycling plant closures affecting PET collection and supply for NAPCOR 's members? Right now, with five recycling plant closures, we're estimating a 16pc reduction in domestic PET recycling capacity. That reduction comes even after two new facilities came on line in 2025, so on a net basis we are down. This is absolutely worsening the challenges we are facing. When domestic PET recyclers can't process bales or access strong end markets, it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a functioning system. We're also seeing imported volumes of rPET continue to rise by some estimates up to 50pc higher than in recent years and that imported material is displacing domestic supply. If closures continue, we risk losing the foundation necessary for a robust circular economy in the US. We're producing and using PET bottles here, but if those bottles are collected and there's no recycler left to process them, that becomes a serious systemic concern. On a national level, PET bottle recovery has hovered around 30pc for decades. We do see differences between kerbside programmes and deposit return systems, but not enough to significantly shift the national picture. Various state-level studies show wide disparities across the US, from states such as Alabama with low recovery to those like Oregon with much higher rates, that inconsistently continue to challenge the system's overall efficiency. Should PET bottlers do more to support recyclers, and what barriers could prevent that? I believe minimum post-consumer content legislation is one of the clearest ways to support domestic recycling infrastructure. In Europe, for example, their updated EPR [extended producer responsibility] structures only allow post-consumer content to count towards compliance if it's collected within the region and policies like that help ensure domestic supply is protected. NAPCOR recently released a position supporting limits on imported rPET because we strongly believe a stable US recycling industry is essential. For years, we had strong tailwinds pushing the industry forward — the Ellen MacArthur commitments, aggressive corporate sustainability goals and the UN plastics discussions all encouraged capacity expansion. But today, many major brands are extending their timelines. Unilever was one of the first to announce delays, and we've heard the same from Coke and Pepsi. Those shifts have become headwinds for recyclers, equipment makers and producers. Add the tariffs on top of that and it then creates a really difficult environment. I wish it was one simple issue that we could fix, but it's a broader, structural challenge. How significant are the legal challenges to EPR in your view, and do you anticipate they could hinder its implementation in the US? From what I am seeing, companies are participating in the EPR programmes, they're paying into them and engaging in the process. States such as California and Oregon already have strong PET bottle recovery due to the deposit systems, so the real test will be in categories like thermoforms. Challenges from groups such as the National Association of Wholesalers-Distributors highlight the need for clarity on implementation. Colorado's new EPR programme will be an important case study. The state doesn't have strong kerbside recycling today, so if the EPR programme works as intended, we should see improvements driven by investment, infrastructure and education. But consumer participation still matters, behaviour change is hard. What encourages me is the cultural shift we've seen in places such as Canada, where stewardship is ingrained from a young age. We don't have that universally in the US. Changing perceptions from "plastics are bad" to "PET is recyclable, recycled daily, and valuable" is part of building a system that keeps PET out of landfills and the environment. With Europe tightening rPET import rules, could redirected material create opportunities for US buyers or new challenges for recyclers? The legislation was only recently enacted, so it's difficult to predict the full impact. There's still a lot of uncertainty, especially with tariffs and how they might influence global flow of rPET. We are seeing increased interest from south Asia to export more rPET into the US market. But if imports into the US continue to grow and the imported rPET is used in bottles made here, it weakens the circularity flow of material the domestic recycling system depends on. We're not collecting what we produce domestically, and if more of our supply comes from outside the US, we risk having even less material being collected and processed locally. That's a concern for long-term system health. What impacts are you expecting from the US Supreme Court's recent decision on tariffs? Right now, I would say ‘stay tuned'. The situation is changing daily, and since I've been travelling for the conference, I haven't been able to follow every update. There is a lot of unpredictability, and everyone across the supply chain is waiting for clarity. By the time this story is published, we may already have a better sense of what it means. PET producer Eastman, which operates depolymerisation capacity for PET waste, reports strong demand for advanced recycling PET. Do you see a growing need for repolymerised PET alongside mechanical recycling? From NAPCOR's perspective, Eastman has consistently positioned advanced recycling or depolymerisation as a complement to mechanical recycling, not a replacement. They are far ahead in scale compared with others, and it's encouraging to see innovation that expands the types of PET that can be recovered. What remains to be fully understood are the economics. Mechanical recycling has decades of proven performance and cost structure. Advanced recycling is still developing. I'd encourage deeper discussion with Eastman on how they see long-term economics and market integration evolving. What I do know is that this is a tough industry, and it has been for decades. To move forward, we need the entire supply chain recyclers, brands, producers and associations working together. This industry supports communities and jobs, and we all have a stake in keeping it strong. Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2026. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Spotlight content
Browse the latest thought leadership produced by our global team of experts.
